×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

(OP)
I'm looking for feedback about the 2 codes. For the simplified procedure in 2003 IBC/ASCE 7-02, it appears the loads you come up with (using table 1609.6.2.1(1) and 1609.6.2.1(4))are significantly less than what you get using UBC. comments?

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

Make sure you're comparing apples to apples.  The simplified tables assume Exposure B, where typically we assumed Exposure C.  It might be all right, since the definition of Expsoure B is a little more liberal.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

(OP)
I think I'm ok because I multiplied the table (1609.6.2.1(1)) values by the factor from Table 109.6.2.1(4), which for this Exposure C case is 1.21 (structure is only 14' high). It seems odd that the Zone B and D values are negative - I'm sure that's why my overall windload is less than UBC, which didn't recognize the negative pressures in the projected area method.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

The UBC Method 1, which follows more closely the original ANSI and ASCE research, has negative pressures for the windward surface of a sloped roof.
The IBC is based on the same research, however, the pressure coefficients are revised somewhat, and the code-writers attempted to "simplify" the procedure in tables presented in the IBC2000. The end result was very confusing, and did not lend itself well to automated calculation.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

(OP)
Your last sentence said it all - IBC is WAY too comprehensive and laborious for most purposes. And I think you undestood my point - if you look at UBC Method 1 vs. Method 2, Method 2 is very conservative at least as far as horizontal oading goes.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

One reason the UBC code-writers made Method 2 conservative for sloped roof is because in a case of a complex roof which has more than 2 ridge or hip lines in any given direction, the engineer would treat that essentially one ridge line (projected area on a vertical plane), rather than treating it as 2 or more projected areas, all added up. This is very typical of custom homes.
A good software or spreadsheet makes it easy (practical) to input the various roof configurations, so the UBC Method 1 was very easy to automate. Later, when the IBC came, all I had to do in my spreadsheet was to convert to the 3-second gust velocity and adjust some coefficients, and re-write the basic pressure formula. That way, I avoided all the confusion with the IBC tables, and came up with the same result as ASCE-7.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

(OP)
Hmm... are you willing to share your spreadsheet?

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

Rob,
I would - but only if you have a spreadsheet to trade (sorry, I don't like to hand the farm over to strangers). <g>

It doesn't do the full IBC overcomplicated analysis (doesn't recognize higher pressure at end zone, wind direction at 45 degrees off principal axis, etc) but it may give you some ideas to incorporate in your own spreadsheet projects.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

(OP)
Understood. Don't blame you one bit. Do you work in Excel and/or Mathcad? Most of the stuff I do is pretty unsophisticated, i.e., I wouldn't call myself a programmer. What I would have to offer is pretty tame stuff - beams, footings, reinf. concrete, columns, etc. that I expect you already have some version of already if you've been practicing for any length of time. The little bit of feedback really helped, though. Thank you.

RE: IBC 2003/ASCE 7-02 wind loads vs. UBC

Rob,
I actually don't have anything recent for concrete, except I recently did a cantilever retaining wall and a concrete basement wall spreadsheet.
I like to look at other's spreadsheets because it gives me ideas to incorporate. I only use Excel; Mathcad is not an option.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources